Yes, I think that's a very good comparison.
It's true that investor-state dispute settlement happens upstream, in that it's done once the legislation is passed. However, there can also be pressure beforehand to keep the legislation from being passed. We know very well that this approach, creating a deterrent effect, is very common. It's been denounced on a number of occasions.
Chapter 28 of CUSMA nevertheless allows us to work upstream, that is to say before the act comes into force, to create a fairly significant number of obstacles and ensure that the act can ultimately be transformed or simply abandoned.
We're very concerned about this chapter. It's as if we made a gain by eliminating the dispute settlement mechanism, but it also feels like we lost something. Stakeholders, who are not from the government, can always intervene in a significant way with respect to legislation passed by governments. That's something we're very concerned about.